> I'm sorry the GPL does not just cover redistribution it covers use of > the software too. There is no reason why a click-wrap license could not
> be applied to the GPL or any other license.
The point is that you dont get a license when you buy a Music CD yet the
copyright holder has certain rights against you about copying and usage.
What it boils down to is that GPL is less restrictive than BASIC
copyright. So there is no need to agree to something. The only
'stipulations' come during distribution and thus the reason the GPL only
really becomes relevant at distribution time.
Again, the below statement is that of a LAWYER one whom is at the top of
the software licensing world. So you can say it covers more than
distribution, but Im going to side with the lawyer and say its superflous
until distribution.
> > "The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code,
> > and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no
> > one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that
> > anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After
> > all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license
> > text, so everyone is fully informed. "
(text/plain)